The only reason to buy this lens is if you want the best image quality and fast autofocus and you own a Canon crop camera. The lens has many serious flaws that directly affect usability. Unfortunately, there are no image quality alternatives to this lens in Canon's line of crop lenses, so it's unlikely to see an ate in the foreseeable future. The main drawback is the build quality. The lens is heavy, but there is play wherever possible, and it seems that it is about to fall apart. Oddly…

I was looking for a native lens for my D50, since I used Tamron. At first, I wanted to buy a CANON EF 24-105 mm f/4 L IS USM, but L, after all! After reading the reviews, I cooled down a bit, since it is still for a full frame, and I have a crop. Then I saw this lens, the price of course confused me, it seems not L, but it even costs more . Again, I read the reviews, hesitated due to the fact that some users did not have everything going smoothly with the build quality and electronics, but…

Sharpness is good, starting from open. The edges are better than a tamron. Stabilizer - I can shoot an evening city with my hands, at a wide angle of 1 / 4s - it's easy! The picture is nice, much better than that of the tamron 17-50 / 2.8, although the bokeh of the tokina 16-50 / 2.8 is generally cool. Focusing accuracy - the usm motor pleases compared to the tamron and tokin. XA - there are, but much less than that of tokinas; don't steam. I use the lens on canon eos 50d. Satisfied with…

I bought it to replace tokina 16-50 / 2.8, because everything was fine on 400D, but on 50D it no longer pulled on resolution, it started to lather. 17-55 / 2,8 solved the issue of sharpness, incl. on open apertures. It seems that from the non-L series this is the only zoom that pulls 15 megapixels. The stub helps a lot. With another 50mm lens, shutter speeds of 1/80 and longer give blur (alas, the pixel density affects). And with a stub - 1/15 -1/10 is not a problem. At a wide angle, you can…

After spending several months on the forums, I chose between 24-105mm L and 17-55 2.8mm IS USM EF-S. I was pleased with the room. Cool sharpness of the pictures and beautiful colors that delight the eye. I recommend that my lens and NN paid off the costs. For CROP-CROP EF-S! http://fotki. . Ru/users/rjabceva1982/album/160205 Link to the page with the latest photos taken by 7d Body + 17-55 2.8 Is USM EF-S

I use the second year as the only lens, I chose for a long time, compared both with cheaper "dark" zoom lenses, and with more expensive "Elks" 24-70 and 24-105, in the end I came to the conclusion that this is the best crop lens! The experience of practical operation only confirmed the correctness of my choice! In the "tele" mode, beautiful portraits are obtained. In the "wide" mode, everything that is needed fits into the frame. I am pleased with the constant aperture of 2.8 over the entire…

This lens is the best for Canon cameras up to Mark (there are already L-ki). Of course, if the zoom is a little more and the price is a little less . The fact that it’s almost impossible to buy it second-hand speaks about its quality - they simply DO NOT sell it if they already bought it for themselves. As for the trunk leaving, I probably I’m lucky, but I don’t leave anything and don’t play, although I use it mercilessly. And I would also highly recommend it to novice photographers - learn to…

Before that I used Canon 18-200 mm f/ 3.5-5.6 IS and Sigma DC 18-50 mm f/ 2.8 EX in conjunction with 50D. I immediately felt its advantage in sharpness, but the main thing is the accuracy and speed of focusing. In the picture, 17-55 does not stand out in particular. Changed the device to 7D. I use Canon 85 F / 1.8, Sigma 85 F / 1.4, Canon 70-200 F / 4L, Canon 80-200 F / 2.8 but I wear 17-55 for important events because, the smallest percentage of defects in focus. I shoot mainly events and…

I bought this lens recently instead of a kitogo (18-55). Available 70-200L + portrait 50 1.4. Now the complete set is almost))) One of the reasons for the purchase is those. the characteristics are still (2.8 const is still better than 3.5 - 5.6), and the second one is even shameful to work with (18-55) (customers sometimes have better lenses). Although I know that this is not what characterizes the photographer.

If you want to shoot right now, and not expect the mythical “go to full frame” and “a fleet of expensive weatherproof electrics without a single gram of plastic”, then feel free to take this lens. It is certainly worth its money and has no alternatives either in terms of ease of use (AF, stabilizer) or in terms of picture quality - sharpness is already excellent at f / 2.8, colors are as close to natural as possible. . After more than 2 years of use under a UV filter, the dust did not suck.

I do not recommend taking it without first trying it on, i. E. do not purchase online. Because the burden of proof for lens curvature will ultimately fall on you. And significant money will already be spent. The corporate service will say that everything suits him, the status is enough for the service, and the curved lens will remain with you. The service can even "fix" something in it, after which it remains to curse the day when you decided to apply there :) It is useless to contact the…

Ideal everyday lens. Excellent luminosity. I often shoot handheld at night: the stabilizer is on, shutter speed is 1/10, ISO is at maximum - and quite decent photos are obtained. Not for sale, of course, noise cannot be removed by any filters, but it is quite suitable for a family album. Convenient focal range: from landscapes and indoors to portraits. It can be used for shooting weddings - in fact, this is an analogue of the Canon EF 24-105mm f / 4L for cropped cameras. The only downside…

I tried to buy this lens in March, when there were no deliveries. Barely found one copy at the All-2022 Exhibition Center. But he turned out to be defective - noticeably lathered the lower right corner. So before buying, you need to carefully test. Everything else was good. Considering the price of the lens, I decided to refuse the purchase and took it from a friend for two weeks. In general, I am very pleased with the lens. Good sharpness even at a hole of 2.8. Focusing is very fast. I'll…

I use tamron 17-50 as a marching tamron 17-50 for 60D, I have always been pleased with it. The other day I managed to hold it in my hands and take a couple of photos on this canon - the difference in favor of the latter is palpable. - He's really heavy. - In the absence of light under the same conditions, the tamron cannot "catch" those details that the canon calmly and without straining catches with the help of a stub. - The way he focuses even next to the USM tamron is just a song. I made

The lens is pretty good for shooting video on a cropped carcass. At a constant aperture, you can zoom without aperture jumps. Focal lenses are quite comfortable - from wide to portrait lens. But as soon as you start using it in a photo, all the advantages disappear. There is almost no sharpness - landscape painters are likely to be upset. The trunk, when shooting from top to bottom, falls out by itself (after a month of use). Dissuaded a friend, but then he was still bred in the store to buy…

I note that this is an EF-S mount with a protruding lens inside the camera - only for cropped carcasses. It makes no sense to buy such a lens "for growth" under a full frame. After 4 years of operation, the diaphragm plume was frayed, the lens began to give an error and take pictures only on an open hole 2.8 I found a replacement cable on ebay. Disassembling the lens is easy, but assembling it (even when recording a disassembly video) is extremely problematic due to the large number of parts…

Was purchased as a replacement for a kit lens. Of course, it is better, although not as much as it is more expensive. Color reproduction and image quality are just excellent, the lens is quite bright. Focusing is done by the rear group of lenses, so the use of polarizing filters is possible. If they don’t ruin the 77 mm filters. You can shoot portraits at the far end - aperture 2.8 will blur the background enough. The hood for this lens is quite common, although it is inconvenient to wear it…

I took this lens after I tried staffers from tamron and sigma. This one is better! The quality is really comparable to the El class. heavy is a plus. It sucks dust, yes . the only joint. For such an amount, they could have done dust and moisture protection, but I’m very pleased with it, I use it in most cases, at 55 mm f2.8 a tolerable portrait can be played. This lens is really good, and it’s better not to find a crop . except that the new sigma 18-35 f1.8 can do it, but I haven’t held it in…

What I like most about it is the aperture ratio and FR 17. The ultrasonic motor is still on my drum, like the name of the manufacturer. I am satisfied, but I don’t really understand yet why Canon is more expensive than Sigma and Tamrons. Probably, understanding will come with experience of use. The fact is that all this month I have been using the lens in the sunny south - so aperture was rarely needed.

I’ve been shooting with this lens for a year and a half, before that I had sigma 18-35 1.8, but I broke up with it because of unpredictable autofocus, which also freezes in the cold. And the Canon 17-55 2,8 is the best universal lens for the EF-S mount, even despite the significant disadvantages. The picture gives a wonderful, universal focal length, the stabilizer sometimes helps out. Therefore, as long as there is 7D, I will use it.